January 8, 2009
Wrongly Thought, Wrongly Said
My grammatical standards drop for items that I read on the Internet. It's a quick and populist medium, so expecting perfectly honed paragraphs constitutes a show of arrogance.
That said, somebody who has just decried the governor's " doddering style" should be careful not to offer such phrases as "Rhode Islander’s overwhelming rejected" as a finished product.
But let's move on to substance:
Luckily we didn't elect John McCain to be president. Said another way, what we heard last night from Governor Don Carcieri was change you can't believe in. Rhode Islander's overwhelming rejected this kind of thinking in 2008. 63% of us voted for Barack Obama, a man who promised to expand the rights for workers to form unions, to tax the rich more, and to spend more on social programs. We elected a freshman class of legislators that are overwhelmingly progressive. We turned away the hard right of the Republican Party in favor of people who repudiate the belief that tax cuts for the wealthy are better than wage protections for the worker. In every race where a Democrat ran as a member of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party they won, sometimes turning out Republican incumbents.
Even if we ignore the fact that many people who voted for Obama did so based on a belief in his promises of moderation, even if we ignore local races in which Republicans, Independents, and conservative Democrats did have some victories, we have still not honed the topic down to anything relevant to the appropriate actions of the governor and incumbent legislators. We elected Governor Carcieri to be Governor Carcieri — not a functionary to implement the inferences of certain interpretations of subsequent election cycles. Incumbent legislators aren't tasked to endorse the programs of their newest peers. Indeed, the presence of incumbents, of a specific governor, is often a factor considered in the voting booth.
So let those who've been elected do what they were tasked to do. And if they are victorious, let them own the improvements and damage that they have wrought.
Pat Crowley may be onto something.
Here's why:
Obama wants to "spread the wealth" from the rich, who own 90-99% of all wealth in America.
The rich instead want to destroy the unions, and cut everyones benefits, wages and standards of living.
In other words, after gutting the wages and pensions of private employees in corporate America, they now have their eyes on the wages and pensions of State and Municipal workers.
We can't allow them to do it, because once those State unions are gutted, there will be no one left to prevent the ever downward slide of American wages and benefits back to quasi-slave levels.
Here's the solution instead:
Let the Federal Reserve create the money, to be loaned out by it's member banks.
Yes, this will be inflationary, and prices will rise, but that will also force wages to rise.
What would NOT rise are debt payments denominated in fixed amounts, such as mortgage payments.
As a result of inflation, your wages would be forced up to keep up with prices, but your mortgage payments would stay the same.
That would solve the housing crisis and the wealth inequality crisis in America at one fell swoop.
Posted by: erik d. at January 8, 2009 6:50 PMOnly a complete moron or a marauding misinformation propogandist could equate John McCain with the "hard right" of the republican party.
And I'd be pretty darn sure that nearly all of those who voted for The One did not do so because the change he was promising to bring them was MORE unionization, of all things!
Crowley is a pitiful. I doubt even he takes himself seriously anymore.
Posted by: Frank at January 8, 2009 7:00 PMLike Bush, McCain is a tool of the wealthy, and an enemy of the middle and working classes.
Posted by: erik d. at January 8, 2009 7:10 PMFrank, unions are not the problem.
Offshoring of jobs is the problem.
Posted by: erik d. at January 8, 2009 7:18 PM"decry"/"decried" are becoming buzzwords of the left around here
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 8, 2009 7:35 PMHere's a question for you guys:
Once they destroy these public unions, the same way they destroyed the private sector unions, what's to stop them from then offshoring these jobs overseas, the same way they did with the private sector jobs?
What would stop them from bringing in thousands of illegal aliens to fill these firefighter, DMV and other state and municipal jobs, and pay them only $6 per hour, thereby putting thousands more of our fellow Rhode Islanders out of work, and likely out of their homes?
Posted by: erik d. at January 8, 2009 8:04 PMHere's the truth:
Rhode Island does not have an anti-business climate.
The rest of the country has an anti-worker climate.
Posted by: erik d. at January 8, 2009 8:25 PMIn more concise form:
The Feds can simply print the money to pay this deficit. They'll do it for the other states as well.
That will cause inflation, making prices and wages rise, but mortgage payments will stay the same, allowing people to finally be able to afford their payments.
This will help solve the housing crisis, and lower peoples rents as well, making life a little easier for everyone.
Posted by: erik d. at January 8, 2009 8:38 PMErik-maybe you missed the story,but illegal aliens have been working in the Registry-and selling licenses to other illegal aliens with criminal records(google Dolores La Flamme who was convicted in US District Court)
Posted by: joe bernstein at January 9, 2009 12:13 AMjoe,
An unworthy criticism. It stretches the truth to the breaking point to say "illegal aliens have been working in the registry and selling...etc." To the best of my knowledge La Flamme is one person, not many. Why did you use the plural? Who were the other illegal aliens working and selling?
OldTimeLefty
P.S. Bravo, erik d
>>Here's the truth:
Rhode Island does not have an anti-business climate.<<
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!
Hey look, it's the Easter Bunny!!
Posted by: pitcher at January 9, 2009 7:47 AMJoe, I'm aware of that particular woman, and I hope she got the max.
As OldTimeLefty pointed out, that was just one illegal alien working there.
If you think that was bad, imagine if they gut these public sector unions... then we'll see illegals running the place and getting paid minimum wage.
That means "bye bye" Social Security Number and identity security, which means "bye bye" to your future Social Security payments.
And then what will the rest of us retire on?
Posted by: erik d. at January 9, 2009 9:24 AMGee Erik, you sure are right. "Offshoring" of jobs had everything to do with the housing bubble's burst. Offshoring of jobs has everything to do with the auto industry's woes -- that is, unless you're toyota, honda, or volkswagen, who have all opened or announced the opening of plants here in the U.S.
The reason jobs are offshored is because in many cases businesses are held hostage by union obligations which make doing business overseas much more profitable.
Now, while we may have been able to tether businesses to the US in the past, we cannot do so in a global marketplace - especially when the technology and education cap continues to be closed between east and west.
If we want to move the country forward, we need to become more competitive, more agile, and open to new ways of doing business.
There is nothing "progressive" about holding on to a 19th Century mindset in a 21st Century economy.
Posted by: anonymous at January 9, 2009 9:31 AMI doubt that OTL is really on the same page as you Erik. I've never known him to support the openly racist worldview you've recently claimed to embrace, nor to support your desire to end all legal immigration into the United States.
But of course (as everyone at AR knows) OTL can speak for himself. I just want make sure he knows the details of who he's bravoing.
"Gee Erik, you sure are right. "Offshoring" of jobs had everything to do with the housing bubble's burst."
**************************************
I don't recall stating otherwise.
**************************************
"Offshoring of jobs has everything to do with the auto industry's woes -- that is, unless you're toyota, honda, or volkswagen, who have all opened or announced the opening of plants here in the U.S."
**************************************
So, a formerly great US industry is now owned by foreigners.
How is that beneficial for Americans?
**************************************
"The reason jobs are offshored is because in many cases businesses are held hostage by union obligations which make doing business overseas much more profitable."
**************************************
By allowing them to skirt US labor and environmental laws?
*************************************
"Now, while we may have been able to tether businesses to the US in the past, we cannot do so in a global marketplace - especially when the technology and education cap continues to be closed between east and west."
*************************************
Not tethering businesses to the US is what got us into this mess.
Tethering businesses to their country is what got the Japanese into their enviable position.
Do some research on the issue, and come back and talk to us when you actually know what you're talking about.
*************************************
"If we want to move the country forward, we need to become more competitive, more agile, and open to new ways of doing business."
*************************************
Ok. Like what?
*************************************
"There is nothing "progressive" about holding on to a 19th Century mindset in a 21st Century economy."
*************************************
Maybe you could translate that into some specifics, if you don't mind?
Posted by: erik d. at January 9, 2009 10:04 AMErik,
It’s the middle class that wants to destroy the unions because their taxes are too high and they cannot afford it any longer. Everything else in your first post sounds like one great big conspiracy theory, something you just made up – care to back any of it up with some hard evidence.
I agree about the loss of jobs overseas. Something I’ve always wondered is why the unions, with all of their political clout, haven’t mounted an aggressive campaign to stop the loss of jobs overseas. Don’t they care about “working families”?
If public sector unions ever get “destroyed” I will look forward to more affordable taxes at every level of government and better services thanks to merit instead of seniority and the shedding of contractual regulations which interfere with every service they now provide.
Frank wrote:
"It’s the middle class that wants to destroy the unions because their taxes are too high and they cannot afford it any longer."
*************************************
They can't afford it because our national wealth is being siphoned off by the bankers.
*************************************
"Everything else in your first post sounds like one great big conspiracy theory, something you just made up – care to back any of it up with some hard evidence."
*************************************
Look at the historical record... the wealth distribution in America gets more and more unbalanced... the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer, the richest nation in the history of Earth gets further and further into debt, real wages and real incomes decline year after year... there is a hole in the bucket, and I believe it is a hole purposely drilled by the bankers, through which they are extracting the wealth of the people through a hundred different schemes.
For example, NAFTA, CAFTA, North American Union, SPPNA, the recent financial bailout for the rich bankers... the list goes on.
Check these out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo&feature=related
Tons of good videos on those pages.
Also, here's one specific document I think they're using as a working blueprint:
http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/sw4qw/index.shtml
*************************************
"I agree about the loss of jobs overseas. Something I’ve always wondered is why the unions, with all of their political clout, haven’t mounted an aggressive campaign to stop the loss of jobs overseas. Don’t they care about “working families”?"
*************************************
I'm sure they tried, but the bankers and their tools used deceptive "free trade" chicanery to manipulate our elected representatives in Washington DC to slit the unions throats, and force them to compete with nations using near slave labor under unsafe working conditions, and operating from behind protectionist trade policies.
Pat Buchanan is pretty well versed on this topic:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29586
************************************
"If public sector unions ever get “destroyed” I will look forward to more affordable taxes at every level of government..."
************************************
Yes temporarily. But there has never, to my knowledge, been a spike in middle and working class incomes that the bankers have not conspired to devour.
Just witness the prosperous middle class in America in the 1950's, which was largely a product of organized labor... it has been almost completely devoured, and then reprocessed and sold back to us in the form of non-unionized imported manufacturing jobs and other low wage work.
Again, from examining the historical record, I believe this is all by design.
*************************************
" and better services thanks to merit instead of seniority and the shedding of contractual regulations which interfere with every service they now provide."
************************************
So they tell us.
But is there any evidence to support that assumption?
Posted by: erik d. at January 9, 2009 11:08 AMAndrew wrote:
"I doubt that OTL is really on the same page as you Erik. I've never known him to support the openly racist worldview you've recently claimed to embrace,"
**************************************
Where did I claim that worldview?
**************************************
"nor to support your desire to end all legal immigration into the United States."
**************************************
Is there some compelling reason why we need more immigrants during this time of record unemployment and record national debt?
**************************************
"But of course (as everyone at AR knows) OTL can speak for himself. I just want make sure he knows the details of who he's bravoing."
**************************************
So in your mind, questioning the wisdom of importing large numbers immigrants during a recession, is the same as believing in the genetic inferiority of those prospective immigrants?
You throw around the "racist" smear a little too casually, but I guess when you can't refute any of the actual facts being posted, any ad hominem attack will do.
Posted by: erik d. at January 9, 2009 11:53 AMSo in your mind, questioning the wisdom of importing large numbers immigrants during a recession, is the same as believing in the genetic inferiority of those prospective immigrants?Gee Erik, now that you're backed into a corner, why did you drop all the racial references in your arguments about immigration that were flowing so freely beforehand? Your problem wasn't just with "large numbers of immigrants" before, you were much more specific. Remember when you said this...
So, to me it seems unfair and unwise for us to import millions of brown skinned, largely unassimilable and somewhat hostile latinos, give them free food, housing, medical, education and affirmative action jobs at our expense...
While reflecting on the destruction wrought on our nation by these tens of millions of recent latino arrivals, from the importation of deadly and addictive cocaine, to the brown on black and brown on white gang wars in California neighborhoods and prisons, to the bankrupting of the entire CalCare state medical plan due to unpaid bills of illegals, and a hundred other examples, I've come to agree with him that we have to repel this unending wave of latino immigrants, before we are all swamped, and go down with the ship.I see that "lobotomized" was the answer to my original question.
Posted by: Andrew at January 9, 2009 12:35 PM
Oh so now it's all the bankers fault, eh Erik? Maybe if we could unionize the banking industry all would be well, no?
FWIW I have never heard big labor decrying the loss of jobs in this country. Maybe they have but they are certainly much more vocal about lots of other less important issues, like retaining the UAW jobs bank. I'm not so sure that big labor cares much about working families, they act like self-centered corporations trying to squeeze every last cent from the one group with the weakest representation - the middle class.
Andrew,
Most illegal aliens are brown, they are largely unassimilable, and their interests are hostile to those of American citizens.
That doesn't make them genetically inferior, and I don't recall making that claim.
I referred to their skin color, to distinguish them from black Amerians, who another poster appeared to lump together under the category of "leeches".
Posted by: erik d. at January 9, 2009 1:30 PMErik says:
But is there any evidence to support that assumption (that there will be better services thanks to merit instead of seniority and the shedding of contractual regulations which interfere with every service unions now provide)?
Since common sense isn’t good enough for you, I would think that the success of every charter school offers some evidence of the above. And every time I go to the local AAA branch rather than the RI DMV to renew a registration or renew a license I can’t help but be amazed at how much faster and more streamlined the process is compared to what the DMV offers. It’s just a lot faster and easier, I almost feel guilty that I don’t have to pay for the misery I am being spared!
Can YOU name any instances when a business or enterprise went from public employee to non public employee and the level of service decreased and became more expensive?
So Frank, "common sense" is enough to prove your claims, but mine require evidence?
You're being hypocritical.
Posted by: erik d. at January 9, 2009 2:14 PMOh Darn,
it seems that erik's computer is stuck in the same rut that trapped erik.
And how could have anyone have confused Erik's declaration that people of a certain skin color are "unassimilable" with an overt expression of racism.
Assimilability is a cultural phenomenon, not a genetic one.
The fact is, many latinos, particularly in the Southwestern USA, do not want to assimilate, but want instead to preserve "La Raza", their race, and they make no attempt to hide this.
Lou Dobbs has mentioned this a number of times on his news program, but since this doesn't appear to be a Rhode Island phenomenon, so much as it is a Southwestern US one, I'm not surprised you're unaware of it.
That being said, your infantile harping on this one red herring, while ignoring all of the other salient points I've brought up, marks you as in intellectual coward.
Like a teething newborn, you goo and gaa over your newfound chew toy, "racism", while conveniently avoiding discussion of national monetary and fiscal policy, because you are clearly over your head.
I mean, if I'm wrong Andy, perhaps you could tell us how you propose paying off the 10 or 11 Trillion dollar national debt?
Posted by: erik d. at January 9, 2009 4:38 PMWhile you're at it Candy, perhaps you could explain to your readers my advocating for the interests of American black people, over the interests of illegal aliens, in light of your scurrilous claim that I'm a "racist"?
This should be interesting.
Posted by: erik d. at January 9, 2009 4:45 PMErik, I had no idea you had offered up anything resembling common sense. Really. At least not in the category of peole responding to positive and negative financial rewards based on merit or that the blatant hindrances of unnecessary contractual regulation do indeed interfere with workplace efficiency. You'll have to point it out. And posting the same comment just one time would be nice too!
Posted by: Frank at January 9, 2009 5:54 PMErik the Schizoid Man,
You haven't been talking about culture. You've been talking about skin color. Sorry you don't like people pointing out your bigoted comments.
And now you're claiming to be opposed to just illegal immigrants, when before you were opposed to all immigration, and before that you were a supporter of illegal immigrants.
I think you're unable to keep your positions straight because you're a troll just looking to get a reaction, and you're upset the commenters didn't give you the one you expected.
No more feeding the troll from me.
Erik,
I'll probably take up some of your claims out of curiosity, when I have time, but for now I'd like to note that categorizing groups of people based on the color of their skin is racist on its face. Saying that you're just using skin color as a proxy for culture doesn't change that; it makes it worse. Saying that your negative view of one race is the flip side of your positive view of another doesn't change that; it makes it worse.
Posted by: Justin Katz at January 9, 2009 10:36 PMJustin,
Criticizing a group of people because of their shared behaviour is not racist.
Racist is attributing that behaviour to their DNA or some other inborn characteristic.
In this case, most of the people taking benefits from citizens happen to share a similar characteristic, they are "brown" (self chosen term for latinos), but I don't claim their being brown is what makes them do it.
There's a difference.
Another poster referred to them using that term "brown", and I responded and elaborated to make a distinction between the two groups he had lumped together.
Calling brown people "brown" is not racist... latinos use it to describe themselves.
Racism is demonzing people because of their race, or equating them with something less than human, which is what the original poster did when he (or she) referred to them as "leeches".
Yet I didn't see you or Andy respond or take exception to that other posters comments.
Why not?
Selective indignation perhaps.
I would appreciate it if you gentlemen would stop discriminating against me.
lol
Posted by: erik d. at January 10, 2009 10:39 AMAndy,
I was engaging in Hegelian dialectics.
I'm sorry if you don't know that means.
Posted by: erik d. at January 10, 2009 10:41 AMNo, grouping a group under the categorical heading of its racial characteristics is racism. The fact that certain segments of that group profit from the ploy does not change that; it makes it worse.
And, by the way, in point of fact, I did object to the racist comments to which you point.
Posted by: Justin Katz at January 10, 2009 10:58 AMJustin wrote:
"grouping a group under the categorical heading of its racial characteristics is racism"
That's incorrect.
Racism has to do with ideas innate supremacy and/or acts of oppression.
Merely describing racial characteristics of groups is not racist.
When it doubt, turn to the dictionary:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
With regard to your objecting to the original poster, I didn't notice, because I can't locate that original discussion, but I appreciate your fair mindedness.
Posted by: erik d. at January 10, 2009 11:06 AMFrank wrote:
"Erik, I had no idea you had offered up anything resembling common sense. Really."
************************************
You asked for evidence of my claims. I provided you links. You ignored them.
I asked you for evidence of your claims. You ignored the request and went on a tangent.
I think you're confused.
**************************************
"At least not in the category of peole responding to positive and negative financial rewards based on merit or that the blatant hindrances of unnecessary contractual regulation do indeed interfere with workplace efficiency. You'll have to point it out."
*************************************
That was your claim. You still haven't provided any evidence for it.
You think I should provide the evidence to prove your claim to myself?
Hmm...
*************************************
"And posting the same comment just one time would be nice too!"
*************************************
Well, when I'm addressing the senile, such as yourself, I find I often have to repeat myself.
*************************************
Poor Frank.
Don't worry buddy, you'll be okay.
Posted by: erik d. at January 10, 2009 11:29 AMSo you're not demonizing people of a certain race. You're just saying people of a certain skin-color are unassimilable, and should be kept out of the country, even if they come through legal means. Is this some new part of the Hegelian Dialectic?
Stop digging, Erik. No one cares about your theories about how to differentiate people by race.
erik d,
Please stop commenting here, you are giving white people a bad name.
Erik:
You should follow your own dictionary link. The very first definition describes my usage: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
You didn't "merely describe racial characteristics"; you referred to "brown skinned, largely unassimilable and somewhat hostile latinos." In a subsequent restatement you said, "Most illegal aliens are brown, they are largely unassimilable, and their interests are hostile to those of American citizens."
That's all the time I have for this particular sniping session.
You're not the first, by the way, to employ the strategy of throwing out more links than most blog readers have the time to digest and then proceeding to dispense pomposity-drenched insults that ensure that nobody will bother to challenge your ideas.
Posted by: Justin Katz at January 10, 2009 3:40 PMAndrew wrote:
"So you're not demonizing people of a certain race. You're just saying people of a certain skin-color are unassimilable, and should be kept out of the country, even if they come through legal means."
**************************************
The hundreds of millions of latino people south of our border can't possibly be assimilated into the USA.
When they immigrate in large enough numbers, such as we see in the American southwest, they seem to lose the desire to assimilate, and start waving Mexican flags and changing the laws and institutions instead.
The fact that those hundreds of millions of people happen to be of a particular skin color is irrelevant, except for the fact that they is how they choose to refer to themselves.
Are you advocating a continuation and expansion of the policies of shipping millions of jobs overseas, while at the same time importing millions and millions more immigrants, as we've been doing for decades?
**************************************
"Is this some new part of the Hegelian Dialectic?"
**************************************
That was in response to your asking why I defended immigrants, and then switched positions.
Posted by: erik d. at January 10, 2009 4:14 PMAndrew wrote:
"Stop digging, Erik. No one cares about your theories about how to differentiate people by race."
*************************************
Then why do you keep asking repeatedly?
Because you're a sophist.
Posted by: erik d. at January 10, 2009 4:21 PMJustin wrote:
"Erik:
You should follow your own dictionary link. The very first definition describes my usage: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
****************************************
Which supports my claim that:
"Racism has to do with ideas of innate supremacy and/or acts of oppression."
and contradicts your claim that:
"grouping a group under the categorical heading of its racial characteristics is racism"
You seem to losing track of the conversation and misattributing things.
I never claimed that white people were superior to brown people. There are just too many brown people in poor countries south of our border to allow them all to immigrate here.
****************************************
"You didn't "merely describe racial characteristics"; you referred to "brown skinned largely unassimilable and somewhat hostile latinos."
****************************************
Right. I never said they were inferior to white people.
****************************************
"In a subsequent restatement you said, "Most illegal aliens are brown, they are largely unassimilable, and their interests are hostile to those of American citizens."
****************************************
All true... they are mostly brown, when allowed to immigrate in large enough numbers they don't assimilate, and their interests are economically hostile to those of citizens.
***************************************
"That's all the time I have for this particular sniping session."
***************************************
I agree, but Candy wanted to make a Federal Case out of it, and keep harping on this non issue, and so you get what we have here.
***************************************
"You're not the first, by the way, to employ the strategy of throwing out more links than most blog readers have the time to digest and then proceeding to dispense pomposity-drenched insults that ensure that nobody will bother to challenge your ideas."
***************************************
1) Those pomposity drenched insults were in response to Candys and others blatant insults towards me.
2) I don't mind waiting for people to read links to evidence they requested, and then reading and replying to their responses.
3) You've all been challenging my ideas, but curiously about jst this one topic, in a vain attempt to pin the "racist" smear on me. If anyone wants to challenge any of my other ideas, I'm all ears.
I don't have any particular problem with you Justin... you're a relatively rational and respectful guy.
Your friend Andy there, on the other hand, is not, and has made no pretense of being so, even from his first missive towards me, and so I returned the favor in kind, but with a little more restraint.
I mean, can you objectively say that his posts towards me have consisted of anything other than personal insults and repeated (and futile) attempts to pin the "racist" smear on me?
Fact is, the guy can't or won't debate the facts, so he plays repeated variations of the "ad hominem" (attack the man) game to try to neutralize or eliminate an opponent he knows (or fears) he can't defeat on the issues.
Posted by: erik d. at January 10, 2009 4:44 PMThe "fact" is that you've been making racially based arguments, then trying to double-talk your way out of them. You say that...
The fact that those hundreds of millions of people happen to be of a particular skin color is irrelevant......except for the fact that *you* used skin color to explain why you supposedly changed your position on immigration, and now you want to shoot the messengers for pointing that out.
You'll be much happier if you admit that you got carried away with your trolling and crossed a line that you shouldn't have, and move forward from there.
Andy:
"*you* used skin color to explain why you supposedly changed your position on immigration"
**************************************
You're either confused, or you're purposely misrepresenting my words, because I never used skin color as a rationale... I used legal status, which happens to correlate to a large degree with skin color.
Understand?
This situation reminds me of yesterday, when Justin claimed that the dictionary definition of the term "racism" refuted my description, and confirmed his, when in fact, it was the exact opposite.
If you go back and read exactly what I wrote, in both cases, you'll see what I mean.
I think this is a situation where one or both of you is seeing in the words what you want to see, or have been conditioned to see, instead of what's actually there.
Posted by: erik d. at January 11, 2009 12:35 PMAs I said, I'm done with this conversation, but I want to note that I do not concede your characterization of the exchanges.
Posted by: Justin Katz at January 11, 2009 12:55 PMNor I yours.
Posted by: erik d. at January 11, 2009 1:51 PMThat being said, I've decided to refrain from coming to this site anymore, because I can feel myself losing IQ points every time I engage in "discussion" with posters here.
Justin, if you or anyone else goes back and reads the exchange we had on the definition of "racism" here, it's pretty clear that your claims were fabricated.
Now I understand why Rhode Island fails repeatedly, because facts have no value here... everything in this state is an ego game and a power struggle... to insist that you're right, even when you're not, and to insist that you're the big dog, even when you're not.
Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here.
Posted by: erik d. at January 12, 2009 9:32 AM